Big Mac, fries and a Mercedes

In recent weeks, auto dealers have been touring the state and writing commentaries to newspapers promoting SB 126, much-needed amendments to the state's Dealers Bill of Rights.

Carrying water for the opposition is Daniel Gage, director of communications/public affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. In addition to meeting with Foster's, Gage's backers have been placing full-page ads in newspapers which challenge SB 126. On April 12, we also published a commentary from Gage under the headline, “SB 126 is bad and unfair public policy.”

SB 126 rightfully has Gage's clients concerned. It would change the balance of power between dealers and manufacturers.

Under normal circumstances, this might be a battle we would stay out of editorially. We tend to be laissez faire when it comes to free enterprise and oppose government regulations which pick winners and losers. Plus, there is a lot of confusing inside baseball which can muddy a discussion of the contractual relationships between dealers and manufacturers.

But when we met with local dealers — people we have long known — such as Ron Poulin and Paul Holloway, we began to see the need for SB 126.

SB 126 grew out of abuses heaped upon local dealers that peaked in 2009 when the government bailed out two of the Big 3 automakers. That bailout turned into an excuse to put local dealers out of business with little or no explanation, like Poulin who lost his Chevy franchise (but bounced back otherwise). But beyond that, there are plenty of consumer-oriented reasons to support SB 126, which passed in the Senate, 22-1, and is before the House.

As it now stands, manufacturers can force dealers to rebuild their facilities or build new ones. That is why you often see dealerships, only a few years old, being rebuilt. This is often why you see dealers building separate facilities for their franchises — only a few yards away.

Adding insult to injury, those new or rebuilt dealerships often can't tap local businesses to buy desks, chairs or signage of exact or similar nature to those specified by the auto manufactures.

The long and short of this is that dealers are forced to spend hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of dollars for unneeded construction and equipment.

But Gage contends such construction is needed to ensure product branding and continuity from dealer to dealer, much like McDonald's restaurants.

Auto dealers argue, and rightly so, that buying a car is unlike buying a burger and fries. And we agree.

While the make of car may be important, we put greater value on the expertise of our local dealer who knows the region and can sell us the right vehicle and stock the right parts. And we clearly understand the difference between a Big Mac that must taste the same anywhere in the country and buying the right car that must perform in New Hampshire's varied climate — not in Florida.

As for keeping those facilities fresh, up to date and in line with the wants and wishes of the manufacturers, we offer a challenge to our readers and Gage. Visit either the Mercedes-Benz or Volkswagen dealerships in Greenland and tell us why either should be rebuilt? We have been to both and don't have a clue. What we do know is the cost would be passed along to car buyers.

Gage claims, however, that SB 126 will not mean a savings for shoppers. The advertisements placed by manufacturers say just the opposite, that SB 126 would cost consumers more. All we can infer from that accusation is local dealers will greedily take the money saved by SB 126 and run.

Besides being a personal attack on some of our friends and neighbors, the accusation makes no sense. It takes only minutes for the vast majority of Granite Staters to jump the border and buy a car from competing dealers in Maine, Massachusetts or Vermont.

In a nutshell this is what's wrong with Gage's arguments — they run counter to any notion of common sense.